At 1/11/2012 11:49:28 AM, Wnope wrote:Now, I'm not a fan of Romney, but I'm curious:

How are the "Romney shouldn't be President because he reports to the Mormons" arguments different from the "JFK shouldn't be President because he reports to the Pope" arguments in 1960?

JFK was attacked by people outside of his party for being Catholic.

Romney is being verbally assaulted by individuals from within his party.

Both cases were examples of Republican religious intolerance.

Heh.

Tell me, what was the Democrat's stance on federally enforced racial integration in 1960?

Some party leaders and important individuals supported it.

I would say that many Democrats, however, did not support it because they were racist.

I am not a Democrat, so I do not care if leftists malign the Democratic Party.

You realize that the entire South was Democrat, right? The Republicans were largely anti-segregation.

This is not true.

Northern Democrats were the ones ardently fighting segregation.

The South has generally been racist; the party alignment does not matter. In fact, when Northern Democrats promoted desegregation in the 1960s, the "Solid South" began voting Republican. If the Republicans were so anti-segregation, why would this have occurred?

At 1/11/2012 11:49:28 AM, Wnope wrote:Now, I'm not a fan of Romney, but I'm curious:

How are the "Romney shouldn't be President because he reports to the Mormons" arguments different from the "JFK shouldn't be President because he reports to the Pope" arguments in 1960?

JFK was attacked by people outside of his party for being Catholic.

Romney is being verbally assaulted by individuals from within his party.

Both cases were examples of Republican religious intolerance.

Heh.

Tell me, what was the Democrat's stance on federally enforced racial integration in 1960?

Some party leaders and important individuals supported it.

I would say that many Democrats, however, did not support it because they were racist.

I am not a Democrat, so I do not care if leftists malign the Democratic Party.

You realize that the entire South was Democrat, right? The Republicans were largely anti-segregation.

This is not true.

Northern Democrats were the ones ardently fighting segregation.

The South has generally been racist; the party alignment does not matter. In fact, when Northern Democrats promoted desegregation in the 1960s, the "Solid South" began voting Republican. If the Republicans were so anti-segregation, why would this have occurred?

Yes, there a minority of Democrats allied with the Republicans to fight segregation.

Of course the south has generally been racist. But the South WAS DEMOCRATIC in 1960.

So it's rather hypocritical to name the Republican party as "intolerant" for their treatment of Catholicism at the time.

At 1/11/2012 11:49:28 AM, Wnope wrote:Now, I'm not a fan of Romney, but I'm curious:

How are the "Romney shouldn't be President because he reports to the Mormons" arguments different from the "JFK shouldn't be President because he reports to the Pope" arguments in 1960?

JFK was attacked by people outside of his party for being Catholic.

Romney is being verbally assaulted by individuals from within his party.

Both cases were examples of Republican religious intolerance.

Heh.

Tell me, what was the Democrat's stance on federally enforced racial integration in 1960?

Some party leaders and important individuals supported it.

I would say that many Democrats, however, did not support it because they were racist.

I am not a Democrat, so I do not care if leftists malign the Democratic Party.

You realize that the entire South was Democrat, right? The Republicans were largely anti-segregation.

This is not true.

Northern Democrats were the ones ardently fighting segregation.

The South has generally been racist; the party alignment does not matter. In fact, when Northern Democrats promoted desegregation in the 1960s, the "Solid South" began voting Republican. If the Republicans were so anti-segregation, why would this have occurred?

Yes, there a minority of Democrats allied with the Republicans to fight segregation.

Of course the south has generally been racist. But the South WAS DEMOCRATIC in 1960.

So it's rather hypocritical to name the Republican party as "intolerant" for their treatment of Catholicism at the time.

Again, if the Republicans were staunch defenders of racial equality, the South would not have sided with them. That is not even logically possible.

If you remember properly, Northern Democrats pushed a number of civil rights bills through Congress.

At 1/11/2012 11:49:28 AM, Wnope wrote:Now, I'm not a fan of Romney, but I'm curious:

How are the "Romney shouldn't be President because he reports to the Mormons" arguments different from the "JFK shouldn't be President because he reports to the Pope" arguments in 1960?

JFK was attacked by people outside of his party for being Catholic.

Romney is being verbally assaulted by individuals from within his party.

Both cases were examples of Republican religious intolerance.

Heh.

Tell me, what was the Democrat's stance on federally enforced racial integration in 1960?

Some party leaders and important individuals supported it.

I would say that many Democrats, however, did not support it because they were racist.

I am not a Democrat, so I do not care if leftists malign the Democratic Party.

You realize that the entire South was Democrat, right? The Republicans were largely anti-segregation.

This is not true.

Northern Democrats were the ones ardently fighting segregation.

The South has generally been racist; the party alignment does not matter. In fact, when Northern Democrats promoted desegregation in the 1960s, the "Solid South" began voting Republican. If the Republicans were so anti-segregation, why would this have occurred?

Yes, there a minority of Democrats allied with the Republicans to fight segregation.

Of course the south has generally been racist. But the South WAS DEMOCRATIC in 1960.

So it's rather hypocritical to name the Republican party as "intolerant" for their treatment of Catholicism at the time.

As an individual who advocates equality, I could not disagree more. I will condemn both parties for their idiotic tendencies.

At 1/11/2012 11:49:28 AM, Wnope wrote:Now, I'm not a fan of Romney, but I'm curious:

How are the "Romney shouldn't be President because he reports to the Mormons" arguments different from the "JFK shouldn't be President because he reports to the Pope" arguments in 1960?

JFK was attacked by people outside of his party for being Catholic.

Romney is being verbally assaulted by individuals from within his party.

Both cases were examples of Republican religious intolerance.

Heh.

Tell me, what was the Democrat's stance on federally enforced racial integration in 1960?

Some party leaders and important individuals supported it.

I would say that many Democrats, however, did not support it because they were racist.

I am not a Democrat, so I do not care if leftists malign the Democratic Party.

You realize that the entire South was Democrat, right? The Republicans were largely anti-segregation.

This is not true.

Northern Democrats were the ones ardently fighting segregation.

The South has generally been racist; the party alignment does not matter. In fact, when Northern Democrats promoted desegregation in the 1960s, the "Solid South" began voting Republican. If the Republicans were so anti-segregation, why would this have occurred?

Yes, there a minority of Democrats allied with the Republicans to fight segregation.

Of course the south has generally been racist. But the South WAS DEMOCRATIC in 1960.

So it's rather hypocritical to name the Republican party as "intolerant" for their treatment of Catholicism at the time.

Again, if the Republicans were staunch defenders of racial equality, the South would not have sided with them. That is not even logically possible.

If you remember properly, Northern Democrats pushed a number of civil rights bills through Congress.

You're treating political parties like they are static organizations. Over time the Democratic and Republican parties have tried to capture different segments of voters.

When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he verbally acknowledged that the act single-handedly gave the South to the Republicans.

Before then the term "liberal Republican" and "conservative Democrat" were common party positions. Since there, the sorting has been so so severe that many people consider Republicans to be the same thing as conservatives or vice-versa. Same with liberals and Democrats.

There have been six, if not seven different party systems in American history.

The Republicans in 1960 captured more of the anti-segregationalist votes than Democrats.

Well, when you type "Is Mormonism" or "Is Catholicism" into Google, the first suggestions are "a cult," There is a popular opinion that Mormonism is a cult, and while it lacks substance, some people care. Most of those people are Republicans.

At 1/11/2012 12:26:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:Well, when you type "Is Mormonism" or "Is Catholicism" into Google, the first suggestions are "a cult," There is a popular opinion that Mormonism is a cult, and while it lacks substance, some people care. Most of those people are Republicans.

In 1960, anti-catholic sentiments were WAY higher than current anti-Mormon sentiments. We see Mormons as kooky or at most deranged, not secret agents for the religious leader who, several hundred years prior, tried to massacre your religious sect (Protestants being the majority of voting Democrats at the time).

It's a testament to tolerance that in the 1700s Catholics and Protestants could live in the same neighborhood.

At 1/11/2012 11:49:28 AM, Wnope wrote:Now, I'm not a fan of Romney, but I'm curious:

How are the "Romney shouldn't be President because he reports to the Mormons" arguments different from the "JFK shouldn't be President because he reports to the Pope" arguments in 1960?

JFK was attacked by people outside of his party for being Catholic.

Romney is being verbally assaulted by individuals from within his party.

Both cases were examples of Republican religious intolerance.

Heh.

Tell me, what was the Democrat's stance on federally enforced racial integration in 1960?

Some party leaders and important individuals supported it.

I would say that many Democrats, however, did not support it because they were racist.

I am not a Democrat, so I do not care if leftists malign the Democratic Party.

You realize that the entire South was Democrat, right? The Republicans were largely anti-segregation.

This is not true.

Northern Democrats were the ones ardently fighting segregation.

The South has generally been racist; the party alignment does not matter. In fact, when Northern Democrats promoted desegregation in the 1960s, the "Solid South" began voting Republican. If the Republicans were so anti-segregation, why would this have occurred?

Yes, there a minority of Democrats allied with the Republicans to fight segregation.

Of course the south has generally been racist. But the South WAS DEMOCRATIC in 1960.

So it's rather hypocritical to name the Republican party as "intolerant" for their treatment of Catholicism at the time.

Again, if the Republicans were staunch defenders of racial equality, the South would not have sided with them. That is not even logically possible.

If you remember properly, Northern Democrats pushed a number of civil rights bills through Congress.

You're treating political parties like they are static organizations. Over time the Democratic and Republican parties have tried to capture different segments of voters.

When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he verbally acknowledged that the act single-handedly gave the South to the Republicans.

Before then the term "liberal Republican" and "conservative Democrat" were common party positions. Since there, the sorting has been so so severe that many people consider Republicans to be the same thing as conservatives or vice-versa. Same with liberals and Democrats.

There have been six, if not seven different party systems in American history.

The Republicans in 1960 captured more of the anti-segregationalist votes than Democrats.

1. I know about the change in party systems; I have pointed this out to jimtimmy and 16kadams on multiple occasions with the Reconstruction as an example.

2. You are referring to the Rockefeller Republicans/moderate Republicans. These individuals did exist, but they were not a major force in the Republican Party in the 1960s, as evidenced by the fact that they were crushed by Barry Goldwater (who opposed the Civil Rights Act).

3. The Democrats made Civil Rights a core part of their platform, prompting a Southern walkout. This indicates that the Democratic Party was not racist, but that a certain faction, namely that from the South, of it was.

At 1/11/2012 12:22:16 PM, Wnope wrote:I'm not talking about whose religion is kookier, I'm talking about the argument that Romney might be act on the will of Mormon leaders instead of the people.

I haven't heard that argument before. I have heard it argued by atheists, however, that Mormonism is an especially kooky religion and that it's dangerous to put someone who actually believes that stuff in a position of such power as the presidency.

"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran

At 1/11/2012 12:32:47 PM, Wnope wrote:In 1960, anti-catholic sentiments were WAY higher than current anti-Mormon sentiments.

That's because, at the time, American Catholics hadn't been as co-opted by protestantism as they are now (But public schools have since done their job). I recently came across a so-called Catholic that didn't even know that transubstantiation literally transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

It's a testament to tolerance that in the 1700s Catholics and Protestants could live in the same neighborhood.

They largely didn't. And there's nothing intolerant about wanting to live in a community with others that share your cultural and religious values.

"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran

At 1/11/2012 12:32:47 PM, Wnope wrote:In 1960, anti-catholic sentiments were WAY higher than current anti-Mormon sentiments.

That's because, at the time, American Catholics hadn't been as co-opted by protestantism as they are now (But public schools have since done their job). I recently came across a so-called Catholic that didn't even know that transubstantiation literally transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

It's a testament to tolerance that in the 1700s Catholics and Protestants could live in the same neighborhood.

They largely didn't. And there's nothing intolerant about wanting to live in a community with others that share your cultural and religious values.

Catholics sorted with Protestants into the "religious constituency" largely as a result of the rise of the "Moral Majority" where Republicans wedded religion and business values.

As an interesting side note, the first post-bellum instance of our government using the first amendment to "protect people from state religion" was to ban Catholic schools from receiving public funds.

Today, however, I bet a vast majority of religious people wouldn't know Protestants and Catholics used to be on different sides of the aisle.